Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian,...

81

Transcript of Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian,...

Page 1: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –
Page 2: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 2

1. Introduction – Karen Lentz, ICANN2. IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study – Greg Rafert, Analysis Group 6. Program Implementation Reviews – Trang Nguyen, ICANN7. Rights Protection Mechanisms Review – Karen Lentz, ICANN 8. CCT Review Team Prep – Margie Milam, ICANN 9. Root Stability Study – David Conrad, ICANN 10. GNSO Discussion Group – Bret Fausett, Chair 11. GAC Geographic Names Working Group – Nicolas Caballero, GAC 12. GAC Underserved Regions Working Group – Tracy Hackshaw / Alice

Munyua, GAC 13. CCWG Use of Country & Territory Names – Heather Forrest / Annebeth

Lange14. SSAC New gTLD Issues Work Party – Jim Galvin 15. Q&A

Agenda

Page 3: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

IntroductionKaren Lentz, ICANN

Page 4: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 4

Introduction – Program Reviews

SO/AC Activities: Policy Development and Advice• GNSO Discussion Group• 3 GAC Working Groups (WGs)• CCWG Use of Country and Territory Names• SSAC Working Party

Program Reviews: Data, Studies, Analysis, Comment• Security and Stability Reviews• Program Implementation• Rights Protection Mechanisms• Competition, Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice

Page 5: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 5

Introduction

Competition, Consumer Choice &

Consumer Trust (CCT)

Review

Program Implementation Reviews• Operations team’s

perspective

GNSO & ALAC-Recommended Metrics• Consumer

survey and economic study

Rights Protection Mechanisms• Draft review

published

Page 6: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

CCT Review PrepJonathan Zuck Chair, IAG-CCT

Page 7: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 7

CCT Review Prep

IAG-CCT formedDiscussed 70 metrics recommended by a joint GNSO-ALAC working group

1 2Metrics and targetsRecommended 65 of 70 metrics, added one on name collisions, suggested data sources and targets for measurement

3Survey and economic studyInterim recommendation to conduct a global consumer survey and economic study to capture 13 metrics related to Internet users’ and registrants’ sense of trust and choice, as well as market competition in the domain name system

4Board recommendationICANN Board adopted IAG-CCT’s recommendation for the collection of 66 metrics at ICANN 52, some of which will help establish baselines and will be compared against data collected one year later

Page 8: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

CCT MetricsEleeza Agopian, ICANN

Page 9: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 9

CCT Metrics – Process

Data collection

Online portal

publication

CCT Review Team

Page 10: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 10

CCT Metrics – Competition

3.2 Total gTLDs before and after expansion3.3 Total gTLD registry operators (contracted parties) before and after expansion

Before expansion

After expansion

Total gTLDs

Total gTLD Registry

Operators

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

18652

14365

Page 11: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 11

2

7Africa

Europe4

300North America1

1

5

Latin America/Caribbean Islands

199

CCT Metrics – Choice

Asia/Australia/ Pacific Islands

98

2.7 Quantity of legal regimes where new gTLD registry operators are based

Page 12: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 12

CCT Metrics – Consumer Trust

1.9: Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (URDP)/Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) Complaints Against Registrants1.10: UDRP/URS Decisions Against Registrants

Page 13: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Global Consumer SurveyDavid Dickinson, Nielsen

Page 14: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

June 2015

ICANN GLOBAL CONSUMER RESEARCH

EXECUTIVE PRESENTATION | BUENOS AIRES

Page 15: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Copyrig

ht ©

2013

 The

 Nielse

n Co

mpany. Con

fiden

tial and

 proprietary.

15

BACKGROUND

ICANN’s New TLD Program was developed as part of a community‐driven policy development process that spanned several years and aims to enhance competition and consumer choice for both registrants and Internet users. 

RESEARCH WAS IMPLEMENTED AMONG TWO GROUPS

• This report focuses on wave 1 results among the Consumer Segment. A second comparison wave will be conducted in approximately a years time and will provide a set of comparison data. 

• Also interviewed were global domain name registrants who will be reported separately.

GOALTo assess the current TLD landscape, as well as measure factors such as consumer awareness, experience, choice, and trust with new TLDs and the domain name system in general.

Page 16: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Copyrig

ht ©

2013

 The

 Nielse

n Co

mpany. Con

fiden

tial and

 proprietary.

16

METHODOLOGY

QUALIFYING CRITERIA

TOTAL OF 6144 CONSUMERS, 24 COUNTRIES, 18 LANGUAGES

Adults 18+5+ hours spent per week on InternetGeographically representative of 75% of global online users

ONLINE SURVEYFebruary 2‐9, 2015

Survey commissioned by ICAAN and conducted by Nielsen

• Argentina• Brazil• Canada• China• Columbia• Egypt• France• Germany• India• Indonesia• Italy• Japan

• Mexico• Nigeria• Philippines• Poland• Russia• South Africa• South Korea• Spain• Turkey• United Kingdom• United States• Vietnam

Page 17: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

AWARENESS & VISITATION

Page 18: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Copyrig

ht ©

2013

 The

 Nielse

n Co

mpany. Con

fiden

tial and

 proprietary.

18

LEGACYHigh: .com, .net, .orgModerate: .info, .bizLow: .mobi, .pro, .tel, .asia, .coopGeographically Targeted: based on only those shown in that region

AVERAGE AWARENESS & VISITATIONFamiliarity, real or perceived, differentiates extensionsAmong legacy TLDs, a small number of extensions lead awareness. Despite differences in number of registrations, .com, .net and .org have similar awareness—the virtue of longevity and relevance. New TLDs have room to growIt is interesting that our reference set of new extensions has higher average awareness and reported visitation than the low tier legacy extensions. This reflects a pattern in this research that interpretability of the extension breeds a sense of familiarity.

86% 79%36% 14% 7% 9%

81% 71%22% 15% 7% 4%

AVERAGEAwareness / Visitation

AWARENESS AND VISITATION BASED ON TOTAL SAMPLE

Geo Legacy (country) High Legacy Moderate Legacy New gTLDs New Geo TLDs(city/IDNs)

Low Legacy

NEWGeneric: .email, .photography, .link, .guru, .realtor,.club, .xyzGeographically Targeted: based on only those shown in that region

Page 19: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Copyrig

ht ©

2013

 The

 Nielse

n Co

mpany. Con

fiden

tial and

 proprietary.

19

TOTAL AWARENESS & VISITATIONAwareness generally translates to visitationRelatively few are aware of a TLD but have low intent to visit it.

Perceived relevance of a site is key motivation for intended visitationFamiliarity and perceived relevance also appear to be stronger motivating factors for visiting new TLDs than concerns of legitimacy or trustworthiness.

LEGACY

AWARENESS

NEW

INTENT TO VISIT

2%

54% 56%

94%98%

46% 44%6%

Total Total Generic Extensions GeographicallyTargeted TLDs

Not Aware Aware

LEGACY

5% 15% 15% 20%

95% 85% 85% 80%

Total Total Generic Extensions GeographicallyTargeted TLDs

Low Intent High Intent

NEW

IDNs/City TLDsIDNs/City TLDs

Page 20: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Copyrig

ht ©

2013

 The

 Nielse

n Co

mpany. Con

fiden

tial and

 proprietary.

20The larger the word, the more commonly that theme appeared in open ended responses

GTLD PERCEPTIONSReactions to new gTLDs are largely positiveWhile there are more perceptions related to being confusing, overwhelming or “extreme” for the new TLDs, the key positive themes still show strongly; and new positive themes related to innovation emerge.

LEGACY NEW

Page 21: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

TRUST

Page 22: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Copyrig

ht ©

2013

 The

 Nielse

n Co

mpany. Con

fiden

tial and

 proprietary.

22

Top: .com, .net, .orgNew: .email, .photography, .link, .guru, .realtor, .club, .xyzccTLDS, IDNs and City TLDs: based on only those shown in that region

TRUST IN TLDS

Newer TLDs have yet to establish high levels of trustRelative to the top tier legacy TLDs, or to the industry in general, the reference set of new TLDs has relatively lower trust levels.

Trust can be improved by having some level of purchase restrictionsWhile there is a general sense that domain registration should have only light/no purchase restrictions, having some level of purchase restriction does increase the perceived trustworthiness of a particular TLD. 

LEGACY TLDSAVERAGE TRUST 

(very/somewhat trustworthy)TOTAL

Legacy Extensions

90%(88%‐96% across regions)

ccTLDs 94%(75%‐98% across country)

NEW TLDSAVERAGE TRUST

(very/somewhat trustworthy)TOTAL

New Extensions 49%(39%‐53% across regions)

IDNs/City TLDs 47%(26%‐64% across country)

Page 23: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Copyrig

ht ©

2013

 The

 Nielse

n Co

mpany. Con

fiden

tial and

 proprietary.

23

TRUST & ABUSE

Online users generally expect the domain industry to be diligentOverall, three‐quarters of respondents trust the domain industry to take precautions about who gets a name, to screen registrants, and/or to give consumers what they expect.

Awareness of abuse is generally highMalware, phishing and stolen credentials are all things that at least three quarters of respondents are aware of—cybersquatting is the only bad behavior that the majority are unfamiliar with—only 1 in 3 are aware. Interestingly though, awareness of these bad behaviors is correlated with higher trust in the domain industry. 

Fear stems from targeted attacksSome behaviors, e.g. spamming, are annoyances but do not create strong fear. However having one’s online credentials stolen, or falling victim to malware or phishing, are widespread and relatively strong worries.

66%

74%

57%

73%

72%

Don't Fear Abuse

Fear Abuse

Not Aware of Abuse

Aware of Abuse

Total Consumers

Not AwareTRUST IN DOMAIN NAME INDUSTRY

Page 24: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Copyrig

ht ©

2013

 The

 Nielse

n Co

mpany. Con

fiden

tial and

 proprietary.

24

CONCERN ABOUT STOLEN CREDENTIALS

To illustrate, let’s look at “stolen credentials”—what people fear most• Relative to spamming, impact is low, but fear is very high• Still, they take the same precautions as they do for other bad behaviors—AV software and change habits.

• And they see it as primarily a matter for various branches of law enforcement

20%say they have been

IMPACTED

86%are very/somewhat

SCARED

Party Believed To Be Responsible For Stopping Stolen Credentials (Total)

National Law Enforcement

Interpol

Local Police

Consumer Protection Agency

Federal Police

ICAAN

Private Security Companies

FBI

CIA

Don’t Know

••••••••••

43% 34%

31%

30%

28%

21%

16%

5%

2%16%

Measures Taken To Avoid Stolen Credentials (Total)

Purchased Antivirus Software

Changed Internet Habits

Purchased Identity Protection

Stopped Making Online Purchases

Other

None

••••••

46% 24%

15% 10%

4%

23%

Page 25: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Economic StudyGreg Rafert, Analysis Group

Page 26: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

The Competitive Effects of ICANN’s New gTLD Program

Phase I – Preliminary Results

Prepared for:  ICANN

June 22, 2015

Page 27: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Study Goals & Who We Are– Study goals:

• Understand competitive effects of ICANN’s New gTLD Program on the marketplace for domain names.

• Analyze competition in the past, present, and future.

– Our team includes:

• Catherine Tucker, Mark Hyman Jr. Career Development Professor and Associate Professor of Management Science, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

• Greg Rafert, Vice President, Analysis Group, a firm specialized in economics, health care analytics, and strategy consulting for Fortune 500 companies, global health care corporations, government agencies and law firms

Page 28: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Assessing Competitive Effects– Registrars and registries may compete on price and non‐price factors.

– Fluctuations in domain name registrations across TLDs and registrars may illuminate:

• The extent registration volumes depend on prices.

• The potential impact of add‐on features on registrations.

• The impact of new gTLDs on legacy TLD registrations.

Page 29: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Summary of Preliminary Results– Main findings (based on limited data):

• Minor price differentiation among most legacy TLDs relative to new gTLDs.

• Legacy TLDs tend to have higher retail markups relative to new gTLDs.

• Legacy TLD registration volumes do not appear to have fallen with the entry of new gTLDs.

• Web hosting and email are the most frequently offered add‐ons.

• Registration costs are low relative to other website add‐on costs.

Page 30: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Our Approach– Collecting and analyzing data to evaluate competitive effects and customer 

responses:

• Registry and registrar pricing.

• Add‐on offerings.

• Domain registration volumes of new gTLDs.

– Data requests based on a sample of new gTLDs and ccTLDs, and all legacy TLDs:

• Over 100 new gTLDs, and 15 ccTLDs, including some from each of ICANN’s regions.

• New gTLDs chosen based on current total registrations, recent registration activity, and expected customer overlap with high registration volume gTLDs. 

Page 31: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Data Collected to Date– Registry prices collected for over 80 new gTLDs (out of a target sample of 

over 100) from the operating registries. 

– For legacy TLDs, historical registry price change updates obtained from ICANN. Historical monthly registration volumes obtained from ICANN for legacy and new gTLDs. (For ccTLDs, sufficient data were unavailable.)

– We collected 2015 list prices, and add‐on prices and availability, from a sample of over 35 registrars.

– Historical registrar pricing information requested from 54 registrars. 

• Adequate responses received from only 6 of these registrars. 

• Historical analysis of registrar pricing is not currently included in our analyses.

Page 32: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Minor wholesale price differentiation among most legacy TLDs over the last 15 years

Notes: [1] Wholesale prices are not adjusted for inflation.[2] Only legacy prices that are publicly available are shown.

Page 33: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Wholesale Prices (April 2015) Legacy TLDs vs. New gTLDs

Note: Wholesale prices were collected directly from the operating registry or provided by ICANN.

Page 34: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Retail Prices (April 2015) Legacy TLDs vs. New gTLDs

Notes: [1] Retail prices were collected from a sample of 39 registrars’ posted list prices.[2] Averages are taken across registrars in our sample that provided, on their website, list prices for a

given TLD.

Page 35: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Retail Markups (April 2015) Legacy TLDs vs. New gTLDs

Notes: [1] Markups are calculated as the percentage difference between the average retail price and the wholesale price.[2] The high markup for the legacy TLDs is .pro, which has special registration requirements.

Page 36: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Little visible effect of new gTLDs on legacy TLD registrations

Note: Volume data are based on monthly transaction reports provided by ICANN.

Page 37: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Hosting and Email – Most available add‐ons

Notes: [1] Data regarding availability were collected from 34 registrars’ online price listings.[2] “Other” includes features such as marketing, search engine optimization, mobile setup, and other registrar-specific features.

Page 38: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Website Cost – Registration costs low relative to other website add‐on costs (across 5 registrars)

Notes: [1] On average, the registrars account for 28% of the included TLDs’ current registrations.[2] Data regarding add-on prices were collected from online price listings.

Page 39: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Next Steps– Phase I:

• We will finalize results and provide a report summarizing our findings in August, 2015.

• We hope to obtain historical data from registrars. If these data become available in the coming weeks, we will provide an analysis of these data in our report. 

– Phase II

• In one year’s time, we will revisit and update the results from Phase I.

• To update our results, we will send data requests to both registrars and registries, allowing us to track price and non‐price changes.

Page 40: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

ContactCatherine Tucker, Associate Professor of Management [email protected]

Greg Rafert, Vice [email protected]

Page 41: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Program Implementation ReviewsTrang Nguyen, ICANN

Page 42: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 42

Section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments states:

“If and when new gTLDs…have been in operation for one year, ICANN will organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition,

consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation process, and (b) safeguards put in place to

mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion.”

Background

Page 43: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 43

VS

Self-assessments by ICANN staff to examine effectiveness and

efficiency of ICANN’s implementation of the Program.

Reviews will be provided to CCT Review Team to inform its work and used by ICANN in developing future

procedures.

What It Is What It Is Not

Reviews of the community-developed Applicant Guidebook, or

of the GNSO policies on the introduction of New gTLDs.

About the Program Implementation Review

Page 44: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 44

Broad Participation

New gTLD Program

Implementation

Civil Society

ICANN

Technical Experts

Governments Applicants

Service Providers

ICANN Community

Page 45: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 45

Review Areas

Application Processing

Application Evaluation

Objection/Dispute

Resolution

Contracting & Transition to Delegation

Applicant Support Program

Continuing Operations Instrument

Contention Resolution

Program Operations

Page 46: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 46

Review Dimensions

EfficiencyTo what extent resources (time, effort, cost) were well used for the intended purpose.

1

2EffectivenessTo what degree the process was successful in producing desired results/achieving objectives.

3FairnessTo what extent decision-making was consistent, objective and adhered to documented policies and procedures.

4PredictabilityTo what extent the Program process/procedures/timelines provided predictability.

5Security and StabilityTo what extent the process/procedure/framework supported the security and stability of the DNS.

6Alignment to Policy and implementation GuidelinesTo what extent the Program execution adhered to GNSO policy recommendations and AGB.

Page 47: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 47

Progress Update

• Defined review dimensions (6)• Defined review topics (26)• Created report template• Identified relevant guidance for

the 26 topics• Completed draft of 26 topics• Identified stats for the 26 topics• Drafted glossary• Drafted foreword

• Internal reviews• Check internal report references• Format report• Update final stats• Write executive summary

Completed In Progress

Page 48: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 48

Sep2014

Dec2014

Aug2015

Sep2015

Oct2015

Dec2015

NextSteps

Review Areas

Defined

Report Template Drafted

Draft Report Finalized

Public Comment

Opens

Public Comment

Closes

Publication date of draft report for comments extended from June 2015 to September 2015 due to expansion of scope of report to incorporate two new review areas, Applicant Support and Continued Operations Instrument.

Updates

Reviews Timeline

Final Report Published

Page 49: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Rights Protection Mechanisms ReviewKaren Lentz, ICANN

Page 50: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 50

Goals

Capture user experience with new RPMs

Outline the range of issues for discussion

Identify those issues with most impact

Consideration of how RPMs affect stakeholders in DNS context

Helping inform additional work in community

Supporting prioritization on future work

Page 51: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 51

Draft RPM Review Report

Tile 1 Tile 2 Tile 3

CCT ReviewTrademark

Clearinghouse Independent

Review

GNSO Issue Report

Public comment period: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-review-2015-02-02-en

• Report updates in process based on comment

Supports:

Page 52: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 52

Key Areas of Comment

• “Premium pricing”• Concern about higher Sunrise registration fees for

some trademark names • Reserved names

• Concern that reserve lists potentially allow registries to circumvent Sunrise requirements

• Duration of Claims service• Interest in extending the service

• URS remedy• Interest in transfer in addition to suspension option

• Blocking services• Described as useful and cost effective, with some

concerns on rules

Report of public comments: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-review-2015-02-02-en

Page 53: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 53

What’s Next?

Jul• Updated RPM Review Report

Sep• TMCH Independent Review

Sep• CCT Review – Call for Volunteers

Oct• GNSO Issue Report (all RPMs)

Page 54: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

CCT ReviewMargie Milam, ICANN

Page 55: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 55

The Affirmation of Commitments

Scope: Review examines the extent to which new gTLDs have promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation process, and (b) safeguards put in place to mitigate issues involved in the

introduction or expansion

Recurring Reviews: 1 yr after New gTLDs in operation, 2 years later, and then at least every 4 yrs

Outcome: Recs sent to Board, which acts within 6 mo. Implementation or if necessary, GNSO PDP follows Board action

Process Improvements: Public comment on streamlined procedures open until 2 July. See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-aoc-org-reviews-process-2015-05-15-en

Page 56: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 56

Composition of Review Team - AoC

The reviews will be performed by volunteer community members … and will include the following (or their designated nominees): 

• GAC Chair• ICANN CEO• Relevant SO/ACs representatives• Independent Experts 

The RT Composition will be agreed jointly by the GAC Chair (in consultation with GAC members) and the ICANN CEO

Page 57: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 57

June 2015

Sep-Oct2015

Dec2015

Mar2016

Mar2017

ICANN 53-Planning -

Review Team

Formation

Call For Volunteers & Appoint RT Members

Planning for Review Team

Conduct Review

Estimated Timeline for Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Under the AoC

CCT Review Timeline & Milestones

Board Action on RT

Recommendations

Page 58: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Root Stability StudyDavid Conrad, ICANN

Page 59: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 59

5 June2015

2 July 2015

10 Aug2015

10 May 2016

June-July 2016

25 April 2017

RFP published

Proposals due

Estimated project start

date

Draft report published

Public comment

period

Using data from root server operators, as well as historically available data, the study should provide an understanding of the impact of adding new gTLDs to the root. ICANN anticipates public comment received after publication of the first draft will inform the context and content of the final study and report.

Goals and expectations

Root Stability Review

Final report published

Page 60: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees

Page 61: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

GNSO Discussion GroupBret Fausett, Chair

Page 62: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 62

Background on origins of the

Discussion Group (DG)

Current status and review of DG Deliverables

Next steps and estimated timelines

N/A N/A

1 2 3

Agenda

Page 63: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 63

Background

With more than 650 new gTLDs delegated, the community felt that analysis and discussion of the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program should begin.

GNSO Council formed the Discussion Group in June 2014 to discuss experiences gained from the 2012 round and identify subjects for future issue report(s) that might lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent application procedures.

Community members from a broad spectrum of SO/AC/SG/Cs contributed to identify issues that they or their constituents experienced.

Background

GNSO Initiates Discussion Group

Broad participation

Page 64: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 64

• The DG held calls and met face-to-face to identify issues they encountered, organizing them logically in a mind map

• Associated the issues with principle, , recommendation or implementation guidance from 2007 New gTLD Final Report

• Help understand how issue is best resolved (e.g., amend/add/delete policy, new policy, etc.)

• Provided subjects and provisional groupings for possible Issue Report/PDP

Deliberations of the DG Deliverables

• Drafted an executive summary, providing brief background and current program status, along with a narrative of the group’s deliberations

• Prepared a matrix which assigns identified issues to the original GNSO recommendations, where possible

• Prepared a draft charter which may be included and used with a possible Issue Report / PDP Working Group

Current Status

Page 65: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 65

June2015

Aug2015

Sept2015

Oct2015

NextSteps

Council vote on Request

for Issue Report

Preliminary Issue Report

– Public Comment

Complete Final Issue

Report

GNSO Council may initiate PDP

The DG has provided a recommended set of issues/subjects for further analysis in a possible Issue Report/PDP. There are a number of steps remaining before a PDP could be initiated.

To Summarize

Next Steps

Page 66: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 66

Summary of DG Activities: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/non-pdp-new-gtld

DG Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/OrXhAg

More Information

Page 67: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

GAC WG: Protection of Geographic Names in New gTLDsNicolas Caballero

Page 68: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Objectives• Lower uncertainty for the applicant, for countries, 

regions and communities.• Prevent/avoid misuse of names which are relevant for 

communities, regions, countries, etc.• Lower the conflicts once the results of new round of 

new GTLDs will be announced.• Give background information which can be useful to 

ICANN in the definition of the next round of new gTLDs rules.

GAC Durban Communique ‐ July 2013:Refine the Rules for Next gTLD Round

Page 69: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

• Possible actions at the national/regional level to protect geographic names

• Possible text for new AGB or other future document• Possible Best Practice Guidelines• Analysis of legal concerns raised in public comments• Analysis of community concerns: should geographic 

names or community‐related names be “Community applications” in new rounds of new gTLDs?

• Analysis of the “public interest” concept 

WG Working on New Background Document Focused on:

Page 70: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

70

• Promote an early contact between applicant and relevant authorities and communities related with the geographic or community name.

• Enhance outreach efforts for the next new gTLD round.• Establish clear steps/way forward for both the applicants and government in reaching consensus in relation with the applied gTLD.

• Establish a clear process for governments to raise their concerns when their territories’ ‐ regions, cities or other – relevant names are used in the next new gTLD round.

• Establish rules about what’s next if there is no consensus reached between both parties.

Some Ideas for Best Practice Guidelines

Page 71: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

• ICANN is where the new gTLDs process is happening.• There were problems.• No changes to the rules = same problems in the future.• WG will present during this meeting a new version of 

the background document that includes information from community comments: legal concerns, community concerns and a revision of the “public interest” concept.

• WG meets during ICANN meetings and through conference calls between F2F meetings.

Next Steps

Page 72: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Tracy Hackshaw / Alice MunyuaGAC Working Group on Underserved Regions

Page 73: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

ICANN53 – Buenos AiresNew gTLD Program Reviews Session

GAC Under‐Served RegionsWorking Group

Page 74: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

ObjectivesThe focus of this GAC WG is on regions that are currently under‐served by the DNS industry and on least developed economies and small island developing states.

It’s objectives are to develop a range of support, advice and assistance mechanisms for under‐served regions aimed at:

1. Increasing the number and participation of GAC members from least developed economies and small island developing states; and

2. Increase the knowledge, understanding and capacity of GAC representatives from current GAC member nations who are defined as ‘under‐served’.  This will encourage them to engage more deeply with ICANN policy processes and for the following outcomes:a) Increased participation from under‐served regions during future new 

gTLD rounds; andb) Growth and development in the domain name industry in the 

currently under‐served regions.

Page 75: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Under‐Served Region

An Under‐Served Region is defined as:

A region that does not have a well developed DNS and/or associated industry or economy; and/or

A Region that has low awareness within its government of ICANN, ICANN’s role and functions and  policy processes and the way that these policies affect it.

Page 76: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Work Plan

1. Facilitation of a ccTLD Survey among GAC members. 

2. Engagement with the gTLD Review team to share the challenges 

and lessons learned by Under‐Served Regions

3. Engagement with the Auction Fees Working Group and the 

development of a proposal on how Auction fees might be 

purposed to benefit Under‐Served Regions

4. Capacity building activity to result in increased numbers of GAC 

members from under‐served regions and increased knowledge 

and skills for those who are already GAC members

Page 77: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Heather ForrestAnnebeth LangeCo-Chairs, Cross-Community Working Group on the Use of Country & Territory Names

Page 78: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Jim GalvinChair, SSAC New gTLD Issues Work Party

Page 79: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 79

¤ Review of all recommendations since SAC045(November 2010)¤ Is there new information to add to ourfindings the community should consider?¤ Root scaling, name collisions, reservednames – what have we learned about howthings are working?

¤ Are there any new recommendations?

¤ Timings – are there any constraints that should affect the timing of the next round?

SSAC New gTLD Program Review

Page 80: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

Q&A

Page 81: Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN 4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study –

| 81

Reach us at:Email: [email protected]: icann.org

Thank You and Questions

gplus.to/icann

weibo.com/ICANNorg

flickr.com/photos/icann

slideshare.net/icannpresentations

twitter.com/icann

facebook.com/icannorg

linkedin.com/company/icann

youtube.com/user/icannnews

Engage with ICANN